Sunday, September 23, 2012

The USDA Knows Global Warming When It Sees It

It's the U.S. Department of Agriculture's business to monitor climate change and changing conditions for agriculture in America.

That's why the USDA has released an updated plant zone map informing the public what plants can be grown in what areas of the country. Unfortunately the latest map, the first update since 1990, is already obsolete.

The new USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, which predicts which trees and
perennials can survive the winter in a given region, was a long time
coming. Temperature boundaries shown in the latest version have shifted
northward since the last one appeared in 1990. But the true zones have
moved even further, according to [City University of New York] Professor [Nir] Krakauer’s calculations.

“Over one-third of the country has already shifted half-zones
compared to the current release, and over one-fifth has shifted full
zones,” Professor Krakauer wrote this summer in the journal “Advances in
Meteorology.”

This means that fig trees, once challenged by frosty temperatures
above North Carolina, are already weathering New York City winters
thanks to changing temperatures and the insulating effect of the
metropolis. Camellias, once happiest south of Ohio, may now be able to
shrug off Detroit winters.

...“What is happening is that the winter is warming faster than the
summer. Since [my] hardiness temperatures are based on minimum
temperatures each year, they are changing faster than the average
temperatures,” Professor Krakauer said. He found that these lowest
yearly temperatures warmed roughly two and a half times faster than the
average temperatures.

His analysis also showed that the country is changing unevenly; more
warming is occurring over the eastern interior and less in the
Southwest.

4 comments:

Deno
said...

John R. Christy, PhDAlabama State ClimatologistThe University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHouse Energy and Power Subcommittee20 September 2012

"Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state. Theoccurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade. The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency. The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s.

…

About 75 percent of the states recorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955, and, over 50 percent of the states experienced their record cold temperatures after 1940. Overall, only a third of the records (hot or cold) have been set in the second half of the whole period. One could conclude, if they were so inclined, that the climate of the US is becoming less extreme because the occurrence of state extremes of hot and cold has diminished dramatically since 1955. Since 100 of anything appears to be a fairly large sample (2 values for each of 50 states), this on the surface seems a reasonable conclusion.

Then, one might look at the more recent record of extremes and learn that no state has achieved a record high temperature in the last 15 years (though one state has tied Energy and Power Subcommittee 16 John R. Christy, 20 September 2012 theirs.) However, five states have observed their all-time record low temperature in these past 15 years plus one tie. This includes last year’s record low of 31°F below zero in Oklahoma, breaking their previous record by a rather remarkable 4°F. If one were so inclined, one could conclude that the weather that people worry about (extreme cold) is getting worse in the US. (Note: this lowering of absolute cold temperature records is nowhere forecast in climate model projections, nor is a significant drop in the occurrence of extreme high temperature records.)

I am not using these statistics to prove the weather in the US is becoming less extreme and/or colder. My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)."

John R. Christy, PhDAlabama State ClimatologistThe University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHouse Energy and Power Subcommittee20 September 2012

"The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.

…

The evidence above suggests that climate models over-react to greenhouse gas increases. Also there is a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they’ve happened in the past before CO2 levels rose."

"Critical thinking" as in gloming on to one contrary opinion to disprove the NOAA, NASA, every National Academy of Science in every single OECD country, the IPCC and the top minds in geology, hydrology, botany, biology, atmospherics, physics, chemistry, meteorology and every other earth science. Deno, you've got the intellect of a three year old and the intellectual dishonesty to match. Now, bugger off.

"Deno, you've got the intellect of a three year old and the intellectual dishonesty to match. Now, bugger off."

Spoken like a true religious fanatic.

How dare you use facts to destroy my belief system!

Mound, you and your climate religious fanatical friends are now a dying breed as politicians (not one word from "oceans will subside and the planet will start to heal"Obama this election) are realizing that they were snookered by advocate scientist and extreme environmentalist that will say anything to keep their government funding flowing.